768
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + +
Content and name change
Why was this removed? It was cited, clearly stated as a liberal belief, but considered vandalism and removed. Do you seriously think that information like this doesn't belong on a Conservative encyclopedia? Conservatives don't deserve to even hear the liberals' arguments? I strongly suggest an unblock, this is hardly vandalism, it's censorship. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 16:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Why was this removed? It was cited, clearly stated as a liberal belief, but considered vandalism and removed. Do you seriously think that information like this doesn't belong on a Conservative encyclopedia? Conservatives don't deserve to even hear the liberals' arguments? I strongly suggest an unblock, this is hardly vandalism, it's censorship. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 16:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
== Content and name change ==
Shouldn't the article be called Fox News Channel, shouldn't there be some reference to News Corp and to Roger Ailes? These are all things I'd be willing to do, would have no bias, and would add to the article. Is there no middle ground for protection? In wikipedia there is a semi-protected status which blocks IP users and new users that have been on the site for less than four days. Most vandals will forget about their plan in that time. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)